Status quo on law passed by Punjab

The Supreme Court cannot remain a spectator when the Punjab government passes a law to make a judgment of this court unexecutable.

Making this strong observation a five-judge Constitution bench comprising Justices Anil R. Dave, Pinaki C. Ghose, Shiva Kirti Singh, A.K. Goel and Amitav Roy ordered status quo on the law passed by Punjab on March 14 for return of lands acquired from farmers for the construction of Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal.

Despite strong opposition from senior counsel Ram Jethmalani and senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Punjab that the court cannot pass an interim order, the bench said: “Upon perusal of the application filed by Haryana it appears that an effort is being made (by Punjab) to make execution of a decree in 2004 unexecutable.”

It said this court cannot remain a spectator when such things happen. The bench appointed the Union home secretary, the chief secretary and DGP of Punjab as receiver for the lands in question which are sought to be transferred to the farmers. Referring to media reports that farmers in Punjab have started taking possession of lands acquired and started levelling them for cultivation, the bench directed Punjab to maintain status quo.

The bench is hearing a presidential reference made in 2004 on the validity of the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004, which was enacted to nullify the judgment directing implementation of the SYL canal project.

Senior counsel Shaym Divan for Haryana argued that the 2004 verdict will become meaningless if the new law was notified in the Gazette after Governor’s assent.The 2004 judgment made it clear that Punjab must ensure water supply from the river waters of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. He said the new legislation would affect the federal structure and threaten national security.

Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani argued that under Article 143 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is only answering the reference and giving its advisory opinion to the President. The question of granting interim relief would not arise in the advisory jurisdiction. If at all the court can only give a further advise on the new law passed but it cannot give an interim direction not to notify the law. He said the object of the law is to undo the injustice done to farmers, when the lands acquired were not utilised for the purpose for which they were acquired. .

Mr. Dhavan argued that Punjab had not violated any of the provisions of the Constitution. He said Haryana’s entitlement of water under the 2004 judgment from the SYL canal is questionable as the Eradi tribunal’s award is still pending adjudication in the apex court. Unless Haryana’s right to water is established, it cannot question the legislation passed by Punjab and seek an injunction from publication of the law in the Gazette.

Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, trying to be neutral informed the court that he will have to take instructions whether Centre can be appointed as Receiver for the lands. But the Bench brushed aside the objections and ordered status quo and granted two weeks for the Centre and Punjab to file their objections to Haryana’s application. The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on March 31.